This proposal is for a series of meta-analytic reviews of mental health clinical judgment research findings, published and unpublished, inclusively, between 1970 and 1993. The funded proposal will support four large scale meta-analytic reviews and facilitate the development of a data base from which additional smaller, but more focused, reviews will be conceived. Trends not easily discerned by existing narrative reviews will be come apparent and hypotheses for future research will be generated. The first four meta-analyses will be the most comprehensive and will assess the practical and relative importance of various patient variable biases, clinical judgment inferential errors, and clinical versus statistical prediction techniques, and generate inferences about characteristics of accurate clinical judges. Clinical judgment (e.g., decisions about diagnoses and treatments) is ubiquitous in the provision of mental health care. Because of this, and because of the absence of any comprehensive clinical judgment reviews, narrative, box score, meta-analytic, or otherwise, this project will produce results with important implications for the study of clinical judgment and the diagnosis and treatment of mental health concerns.